TANO v.

SOCRATES
Facts:
The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the constitutionality
of:(1) Ordinance No. 15-92 entitled:
"
AN ORDINANCE BANNING THE SHIPMENT OF ALL LIVEFISH AND LOBSTER OUTSIDE PUERTO
PRINCESA CITY FROM JANUARY 1, 1993 TO JANUARY 1,1998 AND PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS,
PENALTIES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES THEREOF"(2) Office Order No. 23, requiring
any person engaged or intending to engage in any business,trade, occupation, calling or
profession or having in his possession any of the articles for which a permit isrequired to be had, to obtain
first a Mayors and authorizing and directing to check or conduct necessaryinspections on cargoes
containing
live
fish
and
lobster
being
shipped
out
from
Puerto
Princesa
and,( 3 ) R e s o l u t i o n N o . 3 3 , O r d i n a n c e N o . 2 e n t i t l e d : " A R E S O L U T I O N P
R O H I B I T I N G T H E CATCHING, GATHERING, POSSESSING, BUYING, SELLING AND S
HIPMENT OF LIVE MARINECORAL
DWELLING
AQUATIC
ORGANISMST h e
petitioners
contend that the said Ordinances deprived them of due
p r o c e s s o f l a w , t h e i r livelihood, and unduly restricted them from the practice of their trade, in
violation of Section 2, Article XIIand Sections 2 and 7 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution and that the
Mayor had the absolute authorityto determine whether or not to issue the permit.They also claim that it
took away their right to earn their livelihood in lawful ways; and insofar asthe Airline Shippers Association
are concerned, they were unduly prevented from pursuing their vocationand entering "into
contracts which are proper, necessar y, and essential to carry out their businessendeavors
to
a
successful
conclusionPublic respondents
Governor Socrates
and Members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan defended the validity of Ordinance
No. 2, Series of 1993, as a valid exercise of the ProvincialGovernment's power under
the general welfare clause; they likewise maintained that there was noviolation of the due
process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution.
Issue:
Whether or not the Ordinances in question are unconstitutional
Held: NO
Ratio:
In light then of the principles of decentralization and devolution enshrined in the LGC and thepowers
granted therein to local government units under Section 16 (the General Welfare Clause), andunder
Sections 149, 447(a) (1) (vi), 458 (a) (1) (vi) and 468 (a) (1) (vi), which unquestionably involve theexercise
of police power, the validity of the questioned Ordinances cannot be doubted.***Sec. 16.
General Welfare
. Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted,those necessarily implied
therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for itsefficient and effective
governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare.Within their respective
territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, amongother things, the
preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety,
enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology
, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliantscientific and technological
capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full
employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve thecomfort and convenience
of their inhabitants. (emphasis supplied).It is clear to the Court that both Ordinances have two principal
objectives or purposes: (1) toestablish a "closed season" for the species of fish or aquatic animals
covered therein for a period of fiveyears; and (2) to protect the coral in the marine waters of the City of
Puerto Princesa and the Province of Palawan from further destruction due to illegal fishing activities.